Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the call, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the contract_id vs inbox_id distinction and warning against common misuse. It does not describe the full return shape, but the most important output field, contract.id, is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the ID disambiguation notes are genuinely useful. However, the description is longer and more intricate than a simple list operation strictly requires, reading more like a mini field guide than a tool description. Most sentences add value, but the structure could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly identifies the key return value, contract.id, and explains its downstream use. Combined with full account_id schema coverage and safety annotations, an agent can call the tool correctly. A minor gap is that other fields of the returned contract objects are not mentioned, but they are not essential for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, account_id, is already documented with 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description instead adds contextual relationships between contract_id and inbox_id, which is useful but not specifically about the account_id parameter. This matches the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence clearly states the verb and resource: 'List LinkedIn premium contracts available on the user's account.' It also distinguishes contract.id from inbox_id, which differentiates this tool from linkedin_select_contract and linkedin_list_inboxes. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says the returned contract.id is the ONLY value to pass as contract_id to linkedin_select_contract, and directs the agent to linkedin_list_inboxes for inbox IDs. It also gives concrete prohibitions: never pass inbox_id, product name, or guessed literals like SALES_NAVIGATOR or RECRUITER. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.